If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

As far as the leave it command, if the poison birds were as far off line as in the video there's not much need for a leave it command and I too would train the dog without that command. However in American AA stakes the line to the blind is down wind and only off line a few yards. I hear the command used often in the field trial world. I like to teach the leave it command while I'm force fetching/hold. I use "leave it" when I take the dummy. This does translate over to the poison bird blind or secondary selection over time if done properly. So Bon, rest assured the command is still alive and well!

On a second note, the water portion of that video, if the handler were to use NO VERBAL BACKS, just silent angle backs, do you all think he would get better direction change and possibly do that blind with half the whistles? Or not?

As far as the leave it command, if the poison birds were as far off line as in the video there's not much need for a leave it command and I too would train the dog without that command. However in American AA stakes the line to the blind is down wind and only off line a few yards. I hear the command used often in the field trial world. I like to teach the leave it command while I'm force fetching/hold. I use "leave it" when I take the dummy. This does translate over to the poison bird blind or secondary selection over time if done properly. So Bon, rest assured the command is still alive and well!

On a second note, the water portion of that video, if the handler were to use NO VERBAL BACKS, just silent angle backs, do you all think he would get better direction change and possibly do that blind with half the whistles? Or not?

My answer: Use "voice" to drive back, silent cast to get change in direction.

Do they have water blinds like that in AKC tests and field trials? On the one hand you have the suction to land, on the other you have the suction to the poisson bird in the water. The dog is swimming under the arc, between the land and poison bird. Do the two factors cancel each other? I "heard" that, in a water blind, the poison bird is usually placed on land.

and while I'm chuckling at my own hypothetical example, it does still make me raise the question....is a dog capable of willful disobedience if his instinct level is high enough?

When we train (all of us, of no matter what religion!) we train according to the rules of Operant Conditioning. I've made the point in the past that no matter how good we are Ole Man Pavlov is sitting on our shoulder. If a dogs basic animal instincts come into collision with our wonderful efforts ... he wins. It's not IMO a matter of disobedience, just the real world biting us in the bum. We can attach as many labels to the behaviour as we want, but it won't stop Fido chasing after Fidoette is she's "in an interesting condition".

So whilst your post was indeed a bit of fun, it nevertheless made a very acute and valid point.

But if the poison bird is on/near the line to the blind you need to cue the dog that it is to ignore the mark. The dog needs to learn exactly what "dead bird" means, I am telling my young dog "leave it" for now as I (try) to teach her to run poison bird blinds in which she is practically stepping on the poison bird on the way to the blind.

And Renee, that is the difference between our two games. Here, we would NEVER expect a dog to pass over game without picking it. That would be a huge faux pas. So, if the game was on a direct line to the other bird, then that would be picked first, and the dog sent back for the longer bird. We do not want our dogs ignoring game here.

However, if the line was different, as per the video example, then we would expect the dog to take the correct line without pulling to where he wants to go, or thinking he knows better.

Hate to be technical but neither of those is -r. NO is either a cue for positive or negative punishment in either of those cases. You have either taught her that NO means a consequence is coming, or that her reward is being withheld.

If we're going to discuss the topic it helps if the correct terms are used. I see this incorrect definition of -r constantly from the +r only zealots out there. It gets a bit tiresome listening to people preach who don't even know the science well enough to use the correct terms.

Not saying that's you Bart, not at all, just clarifying for the purpose of productive discussion.

This from wikipedia:

Here the terms positive and negative are not used in their popular sense, but rather: positive refers to addition, and negative refers to subtraction.What is added or subtracted may be either reinforcement or punishment. Hence positive punishment is sometimes a confusing term, as it denotes the "addition" of a stimulus or increase in the intensity of a stimulus that is aversive (such as spanking or an electric shock). The four procedures are:

Positive reinforcement (Reinforcement): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus that is appetitive or rewarding, increasing the frequency of that behavior. In theSkinner box experiment, a stimulus such as food or a sugar solution can be delivered when the rat engages in a target behavior, such as pressing a lever.

Negative reinforcement (Escape): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus, thereby increasing that behavior's frequency. In the Skinner box experiment, negative reinforcement can be a loud noise continuously sounding inside the rat's cage until it engages in the target behavior, such as pressing a lever, upon which the loud noise is removed.

Positive punishment (Punishment) (also called "Punishment by contingent stimulation"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus, such as introducing a shock or loud noise, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.

Negative punishment (Penalty) (also called "Punishment by contingent withdrawal"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of a stimulus, such as taking away a child's toy following an undesired behavior, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.

I understand the terms, they just aren't how they are being used in this thread. Terms have usages, not meanings (although a correct usage can be measured by how close it corresponds to an agreed upon definition).

With the technical definitions you provided, we are talking mainly about whether one uses positive punishment (e-collar) or negative reinforcement (FF). I apologize for using the terms as they were being used instead of taking the technical definitions.

I would say that the British methods being discussed attempt to use more positive reinforcement and negative punishment, while avoiding -r and +p. When talking technically, the word compulsion could be used for any of these methods. In my personal training, I occasionally do resort to some +P with a loud "no" etc. I just avoid excessive use of +p or -r

I realize the video isn't a great example of any sort of training method. The video was simply to show a dog with no FF or E-collar running a poison bird (land and water). I am enjoying the conversation, though!

I think there is a lot we can learn from each other. The reason I am here is to keep learning and improving the way I train and teach things. Sharing thoughts, ideas, tips and techniques is useful for all of us.

Kennel Maiden,
Thanks for your reply to my question on your general approach to training blinds. I came to retriever training from other dog sports where physical aversives of the type typically employed in North American retriever training aren't used, so I'm always interested in learning more about other approaches to training. Like you, I'm keen to keep learning and keep improving. The only thing I can say with certainty about dog training is that the more I learn, the more I learn there is to learn. But that's what makes it so interesting!